No. You can also profit by appropriating the fruits of somebody else’s labor and taking advantage of market failures. Often times, actions that benefit consumers fail to receive adequate funding due to involving public goods.
Capitalism violates the ethical basis of property rights of getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. In the capitalist firm, the employer solely appropriates the whole product of the firm, which workers produce but are denied the legal rights to
No. You can also profit by appropriating the fruits of somebody else’s labor
Capitalism violates the ethical basis of property rights of getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor.
An entrepreneur can’t “appropriate” somebody else’s labor if the employee who agreed to work for a wage did it voluntarily. Denying this would imply denying the natural right of the worker to free will. Social cooperation is not the same as slavery.
and taking advantage of market failures.
These so-called “market failures” are the product of an utilitarian and scientific economic theory to understand the causes and effects of economic relationships, as it ignores completely the difference between the study of Human Action and economic history.
In fact, the intervention of the government makes it more difficult to have a good allocation of resources.
Often times, actions that benefit consumers fail to receive adequate funding due to involving public goods.
“Every good is useful “to the public,” and almost every good […] may be considered “necessary.” Any designation of a few industries as “public utilities” is completely arbitrary and unjustified.”
Property rights’ moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent. The labor’s voluntariness makes them more responsible. There is an inalienable right, which can’t be given up even with consent, here
Property rights’ moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible.
Property rights are deduced by the natural right to self-ownership.
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself.”
The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent.
As I said before, you’re denying the natural right of the employee to free will.
Every individual employs scarce resources to attain a desirable end. If you are against social cooperation, you’re making human action more difficult.
“For a contract to exist as property, each contracting party has a property interest in specific performance on the part of the opposing contracting party. But a property interest in specific performance is not a property interest in the person. The employer contracts with an employee for specific performance. The employee also contracts with the employer in similar style. Each has a property interest in the performance of the other, but neither owns the person of the other.”
In an enterprise, the whole product is the property rights to outputs and liabilities for used-up inputs. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the whole product.
You are denying employees’ free will, which comes with responsibility for the results of their joint actions.
Not against social cooperation. Am arguing that all firms should be worker coops. Labor and responsibility are de facto non-transferable
No. You can also profit by appropriating the fruits of somebody else’s labor and taking advantage of market failures. Often times, actions that benefit consumers fail to receive adequate funding due to involving public goods.
Capitalism violates the ethical basis of property rights of getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. In the capitalist firm, the employer solely appropriates the whole product of the firm, which workers produce but are denied the legal rights to
An entrepreneur can’t “appropriate” somebody else’s labor if the employee who agreed to work for a wage did it voluntarily. Denying this would imply denying the natural right of the worker to free will. Social cooperation is not the same as slavery.
These so-called “market failures” are the product of an utilitarian and scientific economic theory to understand the causes and effects of economic relationships, as it ignores completely the difference between the study of Human Action and economic history.
In fact, the intervention of the government makes it more difficult to have a good allocation of resources.
“Every good is useful “to the public,” and almost every good […] may be considered “necessary.” Any designation of a few industries as “public utilities” is completely arbitrary and unjustified.”
Property rights’ moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent. The labor’s voluntariness makes them more responsible. There is an inalienable right, which can’t be given up even with consent, here
Property rights are deduced by the natural right to self-ownership.
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself.”
As I said before, you’re denying the natural right of the employee to free will.
Every individual employs scarce resources to attain a desirable end. If you are against social cooperation, you’re making human action more difficult.
“For a contract to exist as property, each contracting party has a property interest in specific performance on the part of the opposing contracting party. But a property interest in specific performance is not a property interest in the person. The employer contracts with an employee for specific performance. The employee also contracts with the employer in similar style. Each has a property interest in the performance of the other, but neither owns the person of the other.”
In an enterprise, the whole product is the property rights to outputs and liabilities for used-up inputs. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the whole product.
You are denying employees’ free will, which comes with responsibility for the results of their joint actions.
Not against social cooperation. Am arguing that all firms should be worker coops. Labor and responsibility are de facto non-transferable
https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/